ICAS ICAS logo

Quicklinks

  1. About Us

    Find out about who we are and what we do here at ICAS.

  2. Find a CA

    Search our directory of individual CAs and Member organisations by name, location and professional criteria.

  3. CA Magazine

    View the latest issues of the dedicated magazine for ICAS Chartered Accountants.

  4. Contact Us

    Get in touch with ICAS by phone, email or post, with dedicated contacts for Members, Students and firms.

Login
  • Annual renewal
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Find a CA
  1. About us
    1. Governance
  2. Members
    1. Become a member
    2. Newly qualified
    3. Manage my membership
    4. Benefits of membership
    5. Careers support
    6. Mentoring
    7. CA Wellbeing
    8. More for Members
    9. Area networks
    10. International communities
    11. Get involved
    12. Top Young CAs
    13. Career breaks
    14. ICAS podcast
    15. Newly admitted members 2022
    16. Newly admitted members 2023
  3. CA Students
    1. Student information
    2. Student resources
    3. Learning requirements
    4. Learning updates
    5. Learning blog
    6. Totum Pro | Student discount card
    7. CA Student wellbeing
  4. Become a CA
    1. How to become a CA
    2. Routes to becoming a CA
    3. CA Stories
    4. Find a training agreement
    5. Why become a CA
    6. Qualification information
    7. University exemptions
  5. Employers
    1. Become an Authorised Training Office
    2. Resources for Authorised Training Offices
    3. Professional entry
    4. Apprenticeships
  6. Find a CA
  7. ICAS events
    1. CA Summit
  8. CA magazine
  9. Insight
    1. Finance + Trust
    2. Finance + Technology
    3. Finance + EDI
    4. Finance + Mental Fitness
    5. Finance + Leadership
    6. Finance + Sustainability
  10. Professional resources
    1. Anti-money laundering
    2. Audit and assurance
    3. Brexit
    4. Charities
    5. Coronavirus
    6. Corporate and financial reporting
    7. Business and governance
    8. Ethics
    9. Insolvency
    10. ICAS Research
    11. Pensions
    12. Practice
    13. Public sector
    14. Sustainability
    15. Tax
  11. CPD - professional development
    1. CPD courses and qualifications
    2. CPD news and updates
    3. CPD support and advice
  12. Regulation
    1. Complaints and sanctions
    2. Regulatory authorisations
    3. Guidance and help sheets
    4. Regulatory monitoring
  13. CA jobs
    1. CA jobs partner: Rutherford Cross
    2. Resources for your job search
    3. Advertise with CA jobs
    4. Hays | A Trusted ICAS CA Jobs Partner
    5. Azets | What's your ambition?
  14. Work at ICAS
    1. Business centres
    2. Meet our team
    3. Benefits
    4. Vacancies
    5. Imagine your career at ICAS
  15. Contact us
    1. Technical and regulation queries
    2. ICAS logo request

What happens when FTT are not persuaded by the agreement reached between appellant and defendant on the nature of a supply?

  • LinkedIn (opens new window)
  • Twitter (opens new window)
By Jan Garioch CA

30 April 2020

Main points:

  • The FTT refused to be bound when the parties to the dispute agreed that a single composite supply was made.
  • FTT had to consider the public interest and could not decide an appeal on a basis which they considered to be wrong in law.
  • The FTT found some witnesses unreliable and reluctant to give answers which did not help their case.

Jan Garioch CA discusses a recent case, RPS Health in Business Ltd/RPS Consulting Services Ltd v HMRC, which saw the FTT tackle RPS’s submission that in its occupational health business it made single composite supplies which were standard rated.

Concerns on the reliability of evidence

In a decision running to almost 100 pages, the First Tier Tribunal recorded their deliberations on RPS Health in Business Ltd and RPS Consulting Services Ltd v HMRC(RPS). A key reason that the decision was so long is that the Tribunal clearly did not find it easy to find the truths underlying this case. It is uncomfortable to read of some witnesses ‘being reluctant to give straightforward answers which might not help their employer’s case’ and giving evidence ‘which is not borne out by documentary evidence’.

No Tribunal should have to report that both Counsel and witnesses sought to avoid an adverse conclusion by submitting unreliable evidence. The fact that this decision has been published at a time of crisis caused by global pandemic makes this feature of the case particularly unedifying.

Challenges caused by flip flopping positions

A succession of events ramped up the difficulty for the Tribunal in getting to grips with the arguments in addition to the unreliability of the evidence. The appellant made a failed last minute attempt to change their position after skeleton arguments had been filed, HMRC tried to change position on the last day of hearing before accepting they had to withdraw that new argument and the Tribunal found deficiencies in the bundles provided to them even though they ran to over 1400 pages.

FTT’s power to decide an issue not in dispute

The disputed point in this case was the correct VAT liability of the wide range of occupational health services provided by RPS. These included medicals, health surveillance, vaccinations, sickness absence management and drug/alcohol testing. Over time the parties had varied their positions on the correct analysis of VAT liability, but at the point the hearing commenced it was common ground for both RPS and HMRC that, with some minor exceptions, RPS made a single supply of services.  HMRC submitted that single supply was exempt and RPS submitted it was standard rated.

Furthermore, they jointly submitted that the Tribunal could not consider the single/multiple supply question as the adversarial nature of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction meant it had no power to decide an issue which was not in dispute, but required it to restrict its decision to whether that single supply was exempt or standard rated. The Tribunal baulked against this attempt to narrow their focus and stated that they could not decide an appeal on a basis which they considered to be wrong in law.

They referred to the case of Tower M’Cashback v HMRC [2011] UKSC 19 which concerned direct tax but found the basic principle set out there must be the same when considering VAT. Consequently, the Tribunal has to have regard to the public interest, and for that reason cannot decide an appeal on a basis which it considers to be wrong in law, even though both HMRC and the taxpayer are in agreement on the point.

Multiple supplies v bespoke single supplies

The Tribunal identified the two key VAT issues for them as the meaning of single supplies and the exemption for medical care. On the first point, they found that neither Counsel was able to put a coherent and consistent case for RPS making a single supply because it was not possible to fit the facts to that submission. Instead, the Tribunal found that where RPS provides an occupational health practitioner to deliver a range of services for a fixed price from an onsite or mobile clinic, this is a multiple supply. For the remainder of its services, RPS provides separate single supplies on a bespoke basis.

Application of medical exemption

Turning to the second question of VAT liability of these supplies, the Tribunal was again unimpressed by the arguments presented by both counsels. Counsel for RPS painted their service as a single supply of advice and information to clients’ management. The Tribunal rejected this, finding that the typical client’s main purpose is protecting employees’ health and RPS’s own policy stated its focus was to protect the health of employees. Counsel for HMRC contended that RPS provided a single supply of which the predominant element was sickness absence management (SAM) to support employees’ recovery from health problems. The Tribunal rejected this because not all clients wanted SAM.

In addition, HMRC’s submission was based on unreliable evidence of the percentage of client spending on different services. The Tribunal found it clear from its own detailed analysis that the services provided by RPS are almost all for the purpose of ‘the protection, including the maintenance and restoration, of employees’ health’, thus qualifying for exemption. The exceptions are ill health retirement medicals, medico-legal services, administration charges and training courses. All of those exceptions were only available on an as required, bespoke basis.

Decision in the alternative if FTT wrong on its powers

The Tribunal also made a decision in the alternative, if they were wrong in their conclusion on the single/multiple supply issue. If they did not have the jurisdiction to decide on a different basis from that put forward by either party, they would have found RPS to be making a single supply of services within the scope of medical exemption.

HMRC update on VAT payment deferral in the light of COVID-19

8 April 2020

Matchmaking services and VAT

By Jan Garioch CA

13 December 2019

2022-01-xero 2022-01-xero
ICAS logo

Footer links

  • Contact us
  • Terms and conditions
  • Modern slavery statement
  • Privacy notice
  • CA magazine

Connect with ICAS

  • Facebook (opens new window) Facebook Icon
  • Twitter (opens new window) Twitter Icon
  • LinkedIn (opens new window) LinkedIn Icon
  • Instagram (opens new window) Instagram Icon

ICAS is a member of the following bodies

  • Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (opens new window) Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies logo
  • Chartered Accountants Worldwide (opens new window) Chartered Accountants Worldwide logo
  • Global Accounting Alliance (opens new window) Global Accounting Alliance
  • International Federation of Accountants (opens new window) IFAC
  • Access Accountancy (opens new window) Access Acountancy

Charities

  • ICAS Foundation (opens new window) ICAS Foundation
  • SCABA (opens new window) scaba

Accreditations

  • ISO 9001 - RGB (opens new window)
© ICAS 2022

The mark and designation “CA” is a registered trade mark of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS), and is available for use in the UK and EU only to members of ICAS. If you are not a member of ICAS, you should not use the “CA” mark and designation in the UK or EU in relation to accountancy, tax or insolvency services. The mark and designation “Chartered Accountant” is a registered trade mark of ICAS, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales and Chartered Accountants Ireland. If you are not a member of one of these organisations, you should not use the “Chartered Accountant” mark and designation in the UK or EU in relation to these services. Further restrictions on the use of these marks also apply where you are a member.

ICAS logo

Our cookie policy

ICAS.com uses cookies which are essential for our website to work. We would also like to use analytical cookies to help us improve our website and your user experience. Any data collected is anonymised. Please have a look at the further information in our cookie policy and confirm if you are happy for us to use analytical cookies: